Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the top radio talk show hosts in the nation.

Now say hello to a few of the liberal talk show hosts: Alan Colmes, Al Franken and Randi Rhodes.

According to Talkers magazine - the industry’s bible - Limbaugh reaches more than 13.5 million listeners, and more than 12.5 million listeners tune into Hannity’s show.

A weak 1.25 million hear Colmes, Franken and Rhodes.

Many liberals want to fix this imbalance by allowing the government to mandate equal coverage of any public issue of importance. A resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, a liberal’s dream come true.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation requiring anyone holding a broadcast license to give equal coverage of any public issue of importance. (Whether an issue was controversial or not was decided by the FCC.)

If a listener felt a station was not giving a balanced view, they could file a complaint with the FCC.

Jim McKinney, former head of the FCC’s Mass Media Bureau, said when a complaint was filed his staff would “pull out stopwatches” and time how long the issue was on the air.

Then, McKinney said, either the investigation would be closed, or “they would prepare an item for the commission to take an enforcement action.”

This regulation tried to provide more opinions and information for the American public. However, it actually did the opposite.

Michael Harrison, editor of Talkers, said because of this doctrine, “there was very little provocative … or even pertinent political speech on the radio.” Station managers did not want to waste the time or pay the money required by the FCC to investigate complaints.

In 1985, Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney serving on Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff, said the regulation hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine. Afterward, talk radio exploded and created the spectrum many know and love today.

Unfortunately, many Democrats want to revive this archaic regulation.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin said, “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision,” insinuating there is no option for those who want to hear a different side to a story than those like Limbaugh or Hannity’s.

By looking at the audiences who listen to each show, it is obvious U.S. citizens would rather listen to conservatives than liberals. However, that is not because there are few liberal talk shows.

Liberals actually created a liberal radio network (I refuse to call it progressive) called “Air America.” It ended quickly due to bankruptcy but is facing restructure and is back in business.

The reality is when the Fairness Doctrine was created, few talk-radio stations existed. On-air personality Rush Limbaugh described his start in radio and said, “When I started, there were 125 talk stations. Today there are 2,000. The idea that there are fewer ideas expressed, that there is less diversity, is absurd.”

Bob Grant, a New York radio legend, said he worked with the Fairness Doctrine governing his every word. “I must tell you that I am glad it is not in effect now,” Grant said. “But … don’t think that because the Democrats may ram the Fairness Doctrine back down our throats that it means you can’t continue. I am living proof that you can.”

I didn’t think I’d hear something dumber than Pelosi saying, “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don’t think we can go fast enough to stop that.” Yet, I was proven wrong  by another liberal, Olbermann.

His statement comes at a time when there is an extremely negative attitude trying to be projected toward the world of talk radio. What I don’t understand is: 1) Olbermann currently has no ties to talk radio. 2) His show on MSNBC sucks, and rival Bill O’Reilly trumps him and his ratings every night. Why in the world did Olbermann feel the need to say what he said?

His stupidity shines like Obama’s Cabinet’s IRS Tax Returns. Yes, Rush is in the afternoon and rules talk radio. Yes, next in line is Sean Hannity, and he is still in the afternoon. You look at the list of top talk show hosts, though, and it revolves around the entire day (except for Coast to Coast, which is a different breed all together). Mark Levin is in the evening. Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck are in the mornings. Michael Savage is on your drive home from work and on into the evening. The way Olbermann talks is that come evening time, conservatives disappear from the ratings and liberals rule.

Olbermann is a moron, and as Conservative Punk called him, he is a “bowling pin shaped freak.”

It’s hard to dissect an issue like this because it is so unbelievably simple. What Olbermann said was completely wrong, and had absolutely zero substantial info to back it up.

I’ll keep listening to conservatives, because I have nothing else better to do.

In this most recent monument to the vapidness of the Hollywood superstar, Ashley Judd takes aim at Sarah Palin for the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska:

Judd’s framing of Alaska’s hunting of wolves as some form of sadistic pleasure trip on the part of Palin is beyond dishonest. In Alaska, they hunt wolves in order to keep the population under control. This is commonly referred to as “culling”, and exists in some form or another in almost every state. Because vast expanses of snow covered planes make conventional hunting difficult, Alaskans have turned to doing so from planes.

Another example would be if I thought there were too many dumb-ass actors, I’d call for a culling of Screen Actors Guild members, but rather than firing high powered rifles from a single engine plane, we’d spike their soy lattes with strychnine. That would thin out the herd nicely.

Animal rights protests of this nature are a purely bourgeois activity. I’m not talking about, for example, humane killing of animals in slaughterhouses, but rather an attack on day to day hunting essential to rural Americans. Why should Judd concern herself with details like wolf attacks, or dangerous rabies outbreaks, when those kinds of things are non-existent in her world?

I did notice that that website Judd is pushing is called EyeOnPalin.org, not SaveTheAlaskanWolves.org, or even DumbHollywoodTartWontShutTheF*uckUp.org. I think it’s pretty obvious that this is a political witch hunt; a lame attempt to keep negative heat on Palin for the next four years in order to scuttle any chance she might have to run for President in 2012.

There’s something I’d like to ask Ms. Judd in all of her holier than thou talk about the evils of animal culling; how do you travel? Unless you crisscross the country on a Greyhoud bus 365 days a year, you’re a giant hypocrite. They cull geese and other birds at airports so your pretty head doesn’t end up smoldering at the edge of a runway.

I think the most relevant piece of info from this is noting the fact that this video and issue are not honestly concerned with the killing of wolves, rather the criticizing of Sarah Palin.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this issue is the actual content of the radio ads:

The DCCC says its “Putting Families First” campaign focuses on the Republicans’ “out of step priorities by putting bank bail outs and building schools in Iraq before the needs of the Americans in the struggling economy.”

Putting families first? Ha! How does giving families a check that they’ll have to pay off the rest of their lives help? And this notion that the Republicans are putting bank bail outs before the economy? What about Barney Frank’s quest to nationalize the banking market?

Enough commentary on this for now. You should know where I stand. From a comment on the USA Today article:

So much for change. How are these ads being paid for? More taxpayer money. Don’t forget that 46% of our country (58,343,671 Americans) did not vote for Obama. We all want our president to succeed but the congress is despicable. Pelosi should go. Real change comes from cooperation not bullying. I don’t want my children’s future compromised by irresponsible spending. We could have given out $100,000 to each family in the US with the amount of money already spent on stimulus and I can tell you the majority would have gone out and spent. Instead we give it to banks and car companies that go out and spend it on themselves at our expense. No change, just more of the same.

I arrived at about 8a, and the line was inching its way out the door into the bitter cold. Soon, though, I was able to keep warm inside the lobby. Now part of me wanted to take off, partly because of this thing called work and partly because I didn’t want to eat by myself. However, for whatever reason, I decided to stay.

I was seated about 8:30a with a total stranger. I welcomed this opportunity; I’m one who likes to engage in conversation with strangers in environments outside of my comfort zone.

As expected, the topic of the economy was brought up; how could it not be? We’re sitting, eating with strangers…for free. The stranger, let’s call him Phil, started talking about how “disgusting” it was for all the CEOs to be taking huge bonuses and firing thousands and thousands from their companies. He said anyone like that are “crooks.”

“They should be lined up and shot. A crook is a crook,” Phil told me. He told me about a story of a friend of his, many years ago, who was caught stealing a pair of shoes from a department store Downtown. The shoes must have been worth 10 or 12 dollars, and the crook was sent to jail for 10 years. Whether or not the sentencing was justifiable, it does bring up the interesting notion of what should happen to those “crooks” on Wall Street, in Congress or in the banks.

After that conversation ended, we briefly talked about the Chiefs, and then that was it. Phil and I sat there in silence, enjoyed our free breakfast and went on our separate ways.

I’m glad I decided to stay. I’m glad I decided to eat with a stranger. It’s nice to talk to an honest individual who doesn’t want to play the game of politics, rather, he wants to be treated fair.

Should we line up the crooks and shoot them? That might be a tad extreme, but one thing is for certain: Denny’s Grand Slam hit the spot this morning.

President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math.

I don’t know what that means. Do the math? In what regard? Maybe he means Obama hasn’t provided any mathematical proof that his plan will save or create four million jobs. I doubt that’s what he was trying to go for. Then he goes on to say this:

The crisis is at least as grave as the one that confronted us — and, for a time, united us — after 9/11. Which is why the antics among Republicans on Capitol Hill seem so surreal. These are the same politicians who only yesterday smeared the patriotism of any dissenters from Bush’s “war on terror.” Where is their own patriotism now that economic terror is inflicting far more harm on their constituents than Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent W.M.D.?

I was not in New York City on September 11th. I know several New Yorkers who were gravely affected by the travesty, however. In fact, last summer when I was at WABC, the mere mention of 9/11 would turn the room silent. I think it is highly irresponsible and insensitive of Rich to compare the economic crisis we’re in to that of 9/11. And regarding the “nonesixtent” weapons of mass destruction, well, that’s an argument for another post. He continues:

The current G.O.P. acts as if it — and we — have all the time in the world. It kept hoping in vain that the fast-waning Blago sideshow would somehow impale Obama or Rahm Emanuel. It has come perilously close to wishing aloud that a terrorist attack will materialize to discredit Obama’s reversals of Bush policy on torture, military tribunals and Gitmo. The party’s sole consistent ambition is to play petty politics to gum up the works.

Yikes. Rich accuses the current GOP of wishing for a terrorist attack to materialize. That is quite ignorant. And, if you visit the link in the quote, you’ll find that what he refers to really has no relation to the wishful thinking of a terrorist attack. From the linked story Washington Post story:

If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible — and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

That doesn’t sound like the GOP is wishing for a terrorist attack. It simply states the unfortunate truth. On with Rich’s column:

If the country wasn’t suffering, the Republicans’ behavior would be a laugh riot. The House minority leader, John Boehner, from the economic wasteland of Ohio, declared on “Meet the Press” last Sunday that the G.O.P. didn’t want to be “the party of ‘No’ ” but “the party of better ideas, better solutions.” And what are those ideas, exactly? He said he’ll get back to us “over the coming months.”

I don’t find that attitude warrant of a “laugh riot.” In fact, I find it reprehensible that Congress, and the President, are trying to pass a stimulus plan so quick! Give the new Congress and the new President some time to work the absolute best plan for the country. That makes sense. That is what they should be doing. The fact that the House GOP unanimously voted against the plan is because they don’t agree with it (confusing, right!). Yet, Rich calls this unanimous vote “political symbolism.” Perhaps the GOP is actually standing up for what it believes in, instead of passing an abnormally expensive bill that might help the economy for a few months, but will leave the country in even more debt than before.

And to end the column, Rich, of course, takes a jab at Limbaugh:

“It’s up to me to hijack the Obama honeymoon,” Limbaugh soon gloated, “and I’ve done it.” In his dreams. He has hijacked what’s left of the Republican Party; the Obama honeymoon remains intact. The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that’s as trying as war. To paraphrase a dictum that has been variously attributed to two of our most storied leaders in times of great challenge, Thomas Paine and George Patton, the Republicans should either lead, follow or get out of the grown-ups’ way.

First off, Limbaugh is doing a great job at hijacking the honeymoon. Instead of worrying about substantial issues, he has the President griping about the talk radio host and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee drafting up a petition!

Rich’s editorial is ignorant at best, but scarier than that, is just plain irresponsible. To compare the economic crisis to 9/11 and war is borderline offensive. I hope there are few Americans who believe what Rich believes, but I have a feeling he’s been getting pats on the back for this one.